Navigate:

GOP’s problems exposed in struggle for Senate

The party’s hands-off approach to primaries produced some weakened candidates. | AP Photos

David Steelman, whose wife, Sarah Steelman, was one of three candidates in the three-way GOP primary, charged that while the NRSC never publicly endorsed a candidate, its preference was first-time candidate John Brunner, who had the ability to self-fund a race.

Steelman argued that the NRSC’s implicit support of Brunner — at a time when Steelman was already ahead of McCaskill in polls — “created the dynamic that let Akin win.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

“They kept saying to me Akin cannot win and I kept telling them he was going to, if Brunner and his allies — and I meant NRSC — was obsessed with Steelman. They told me absolutely clearly up until polling changed that Akin could not win,” Steelman told POLITICO.

An NRSC official declined comment, but one GOP operative familiar with the race groused that Steelman had early and ample committee assistance but proved to be an underwhelming candidate.

Matt Miller, a former aide to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said party leaders are responsible for allowing these kinds of problems to fester.

“Winning the seat is more important than not getting criticized. Where the national party has helped shape primaries, we’ve ended up winning general elections more often than not,” Miller said. “They haven’t shown the results, so their base isn’t willing to sit down and be quiet.”

SCHUMER V. CORNYN

Some of the differences between the two parties boil down to how both New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Cornyn handled backlash from the base when they tried to hand-pick candidates.

When Schumer was DSCC chairman during the 2006 and 2008 cycles, he changed past committee precedent by selecting Democrats in their primaries and then working to clear the field. The strategy angered the left, but it was successful.

In Pennsylvania, the party pushed anti-abortion candidate Bob Casey past the liberal base in 2006. The same year in Ohio, it elevated Sherrod Brown over Iraq War veteran and Netroots favorite Paul Hackett. And in 2008, Schumer picked Jeff Merkley in Oregon over lawyer and political activist Steve Novick.

Schumer called his aggressiveness in primaries a “real sea change” for the party. Before 2005, it was considered “religion” not to intervene in intraparty fights, he said.

“Look, the tea party has more clout — has undue clout — on the Republicans,” Schumer told POLITICO. “But let me tell you, when we first started this in 2005, there was a load of flak, everywhere.”

Schumer said times have changed for his base.

“What happened is they saw the strategy worked. Now they are much more on board. … I think we’ve learned it the hard way – that this is what works. We got killed before 2005, and now people who were strongly ideological on the left side realize that this strategy may not achieve 100 percent of their goals, but it achieves 75 or 80 percent of their goals, and that’s a lot better than achieving no percent of their goals.”

Cornyn declined to be interviewed.

But other Republicans say the Democrats’ approach is indicative of its top-down governing philosophy, in which Washington dictates what it wants to the states.

“From governing to candidate recruitment, Democrats broadly think Washington knows best,” said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the NRSC. “Not surprisingly, that philosophy has led to the most liberal slate of Senate candidates in over a decade. Conversely, Republicans throughout the country have produced a great slate of candidates, many of whom will be sworn in to the United States Senate in January.”

Perhaps I am missing something, but I am amazed every time I read another article about the trend of the Republican party but see no mention of the Lewis Powell memo to the Chamber of Commerce back in the 1970s. This has been reported extensively by Bill Moyers, who is universally respected. There are several books on the subject as well:

http://billmoyers.com/c...

The authors may not agree with Moyers' conclusion, but his claim that Republican policies of today controlled by the business community more than by any philosophy, demographic, history etc. should at least be discussed.

those tied to Obama's coattail are doomed. Many Democrats have already jumped Obama's sinking ship. With Obama and Gaffer Biden at the top of the ticket, Harry Reid is worried about losing his leadership position.

Obama kicking back in that first debate and getting the rightwing nuts hopes up. Is going to be sooooo SWEET when we CRUSH THEM in November!!!!

It was turning into a blowout at a record distance from the election and people were settleing in and not apt to vote.

NOW the wingnuts got a false woodie and Obama slapped the temper tantrum throwing Mitt, all over the stage Tuesday night. So the second surge should be CRUSHING these freaks of nature that the teabaggers drug out.

Hahaha hahaha These losers lost in 2008 and are linining up for some well deserved, public humiliation, this year too!

And if all this rightwing baffoonery wasn't enough of a prescription for losing. They let the elites in New England hand them some WILLARD the trust-fund baby!!!!

To FAKE being a SEVERE conservative, on the road to being slapped out of town. Just like Lame McSame and the fish clubbing dimwit.

Economic signs are favorable but a divided congress (which is a likely outcome of the election) needs a President that can create mutually acceptable solutions that create FASTER growth (and jobs). Obama's problem is that he DIVIDES competing interests further than necessary which prevents solutions which SLOWS growth. Every day of slow growth hurts our country in every possible way. Are the Republicans to blame? We need a President who is more focused on the SOLUTION and less focused on who is to blame.

The main reason Republicans are having a hard time taking control of the Senate is voters are getting fed up with the old, tired, failed agenda the Republicans regularly recycle and are presently peddling. Voters are becoming suspicious of Republican promises for good reasons. One, Republicans often promise to shrink government and end up expanding government. Two, Republicans promise tax cuts and end up getting the lion's share of the siphoned federal treasury to a relatively small number of the wealthiest, while most Republican voters get peanuts -- or worse, end up paying more to pay for those tax windfalls enjoyed by the richest. Three, Republicans generally promise to cut regulations to increase everyone's liberty and to allow something closer to a laissez faire capitalism to breathe and grow jobs and our economy miraculously. But when Republicans cut regulations on Capitol Hill, they cut them not for most citizens; they cut them for the rich and powerful, usually for big coporations looking to make a quicker and bigger buck by cutting corners on safe waste removal and food inspection and car safety, et cetera -- things that end up coming back and biting the voters in bad ways. The liberty is given to the rich and powerful to run roughshod over the rest of US. Yes, until Republicans come up with a better, fresher, sounder agenda, they should have trouble winning elections.

Though I think most tea partiers are unwittingly corporate shills, duped cheerleaders for the one percent, I admire the democracy-in-action they represent. Elections are of, for and by the people, not some Politburo Central Command, be it Republican, Democratic, Libertarian or Green. Look at the hand-chosen, or party-chosen candidates: increasingly they are rich persons of the one percent because they can finance their own campaigns. This is a bad trend that paves the path for plutocracy.

Noooooo the problem of Republicans in the Senate is George W Bush, and Big Bird, and condoms, and partial birth abortion, and racism. You fix all that and Repugs would be in charge. I am soooooo glad Politico is ALWAYS there to tell us how mean and silly Repugs are. Please keep it up and NEVER tell us anything about the glorious do nothing wrong Democrats.

Roameo-you are right about GOP support for big corporations, but Democrats provide the same support for big corporations through granting subsidies and waivers around the regulations they impose. The difference is that expanding regulation crushes SMALL companies who do not get waivers and handouts. Small companies can't expand when they shoulder the disproportionate cost of compliance with expanding regulation and the unlimited downside economic and legal risks they create . I seriously doubt you would find a business owner that would disagree with me.

Roameo-you are right about GOP support for big corporations, but Democrats provide the same support for big corporations through granting subsidies and waivers around the regulations they impose. The difference is that expanding regulation crushes SMALL companies who do not get waivers and handouts. Small companies can't expand when they shoulder the disproportionate cost of compliance with expanding regulation and the unlimited downside economic and legal risks they create . I seriously doubt you would find a business owner that would disagree with me.

The republican senate candidate in Maryland, Dan Bongino, is a former Secret Service Agent who "quit" after 12 years. No one is sure exactly why.

Dan Bongino's brother, also a SS agent, was working in Columbia this year, and him and many of Dan Bongino's close personal friends were the ones who were fired from the Secret Service because of the prostitution scandal.

IF you exclusively support one party vs the other, you are likely part of the PROBLEM!! Neither party has performed well EXCEPT in promoting themselves! Sadly, most of the posts here are by delusional people who 'think' a party is good and not only out for themselves vs the good of our country!!! SHAME!

The Republican Senate chances are all but lost. The article highlights the very reason the Republican party will be a lost caused now and in the future as well. Listening to Rush Limpbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the right wing enablers is the problem. Going further to the right is dangerous. It scare the living h@ll out of the American people. That's the very reason the party didn't take the Senate last election. This also serve as a measurement for future Presidential elections. The Democrats are in position to control Washington for a long time, as long as the Republicans doesn't heed the warning signs. I see a third party coming into play if this destruction of the Grand Ole Party continue.

IF you exclusively support one party vs the other, you are likely part of the PROBLEM!! Neither party has performed well EXCEPT in promoting themselves! Sadly, most of the posts here are by delusional people who 'think' a party is good and not only out for themselves vs the good of our country!!! SHAME!

I think if you mindlessly bash both parties to show everyone how smart you think you are, you're part of the problem.

Just look at the attempted recall of Governor Walker in Wisconsin this past June. The pollsters all said it was too close to call. But when the dust had settled, Walker had won again, by a comfortable 7% margin.

It is said by many that the polls are rigged to make Democrats look good in an attempt to discourage Republican turnout. I'm beginning to believe it. When you look at the internals of these polls, you find Democrats being oversampled by double-digit margins. Many of these so-called pollsters must have gotten their training in the old Soviet Union.